Abstract:
This thesis comprises a comparative study of both the anti-terrorism laws and the status that govern the activities of the intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The study is undertaken with specific reference to the legislative requirements necessary to effectively counter the threat from Al Qaeda. It finds that contemporary legislative mechanisms for handling traditional terrorist organisations are less than effective against the present threat from radical Islamist movements. The legislation in all four jurisdictions has recently undergone considerable amendment, however the efficacy of the legislative changes varies considerably. This is, in part, due to the comparative inexperience of, notably, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand jurisdictions in dealing with the threat from terrorism but also as a result of the common use of incremental extensions to existing statutes. While this strategy enabled countries to put in place some form of legislative defence, it has largely prevented coherent and consistent powers from being enacted. Thus the intelligence agencies are somewhat constrained by the nature of the laws that determine the scope and nature of their activity. In the light of these findings the study proceed to outline and discuss a number of ways in which the legislation may be improved, before considering a variety of implications, not only for the development of future public policy in this area, but also for empirical studies of intelligence agency activity.
